Global Emerging Markets All Cap

During the quarter there were 477 proposals from 33 companies to vote on. On behalf of our clients, we voted against 11 proposals and abstained from voting on 16 proposals.

We voted against the remuneration report at Dino Polska as we believe the current policy does not encourage executives to focus on long-term goals. Implementing a long-term incentive plan could, along with enhanced disclosure and transparency on the remuneration structure, be beneficial for both the company and its shareholders. (one proposal)

We voted against changing the terms of the board at EPAM Systems as the proposed changes would require all directors to stand for election annually instead of on staggered terms. While we understand the rationale for annual elections, we believe that a staggered approach provides continuity and helps prevent excessive turnover. We also voted against changes to limit the liability of certain officers, as we believe the company has demonstrated its ability to attract and retain an admirable management team under the current structure, which encourages managers to think and act as long-term owners. Finally, we voted against the appointment of the auditor as they have been in place for over 10 years. The company has given no information on rotating its auditors, a practice we believe is important to ensure a fresh perspective is brought to its accounts. (three proposals)

We voted against a proposal at MercadoLibre to move the company’s registration from Delaware to Texas as it did not provide clear reasons for the change, and we do not believe the move aligns with shareholders’ interests. (one proposal)

We voted against the recasting of votes (the ability for voters to change their original votes on a particular matter in response to new information or changes to a proposal) for directors and the supervisory council at RaiaDrogasil. We believe the principle of recasting votes for an amended group of candidates is poor practice and would prefer the group to be resubmitted for voting. (two proposals)

We voted against the election of a director at Trip.com due to the company's lack of disclosure regarding director attendance, the number of board meetings held, and the voting results from the previous year. Our aim is to encourage greater transparency and adoption of global governance standards. (one proposal)

We voted against the recasting of votes for the supervisory council at WEG as we believe the principle of recasting votes for an amended group of candidates is poor practice and would prefer the group to be resubmitted for voting. We also abstained from voting on a request for a separate board election and the election of a supervisory council position. According to Brazilian voting practices, we are unable to vote for this proposal while simultaneouslysupporting the board in its candidate elections. (two proposals)

We voted against a request for approval to invest in wealth management products at Zhejiang Supor as we believe it carries excessive risk relative to the limited additional returns these products would provide. Making such financial investments is not central to the business and we believe surplus cash is better kept in time deposits at banks. (one proposal)

By supporting the appointment of the auditor at Jerónimo Martins, we abstained from voting on three other proposals related to auditor appointments. (three proposals)

We abstained from voting on proposals relating to the accounts and acts of the board at Regional. At the time of voting, the company had not released its annual report and/or audited financial statements, leaving us without significant information to make an informed decision. (10 proposals)

We abstained from voting on the establishment of a supervisory council at TOTVS as the company had not disclosed which candidates would be up for election to serve on the council. (two proposals)

We voted against a shareholder proposal regarding simple majority voting at EPAM Systems as this topic was already covered by the company's own proposal, which we supported. (one proposal)

During the quarter there were 59 resolutions from 12 companies to vote on. On behalf of clients, we voted against six resolutions.

We voted against executive remuneration at Bank Central Asia because we believed it was excessive. (one resolution)

We voted against the election of a director and their remuneration at IndiaMART as we seek to encourage greater diversity and independence on the board. (one resolution)

We voted against the election of two directors and an audit committee member at Samsung Electronics as we do not believe them to be truly independent. (three resolutions)

We voted against the election of the audit committee chair at Unicharm as we do not believe they are independent. (one resolution)

During the quarter there were 28 resolutions from eight companies to vote on. On behalf of clients, we did not vote against any resolutions.

During the quarter there were 153 resolutions from 17 companies to vote on. On behalf of clients, we voted against three resolutions.

We voted against the appointment of the auditor at Philippine Seven as they have been in place for over ten years. The company has given no information on intended rotation which we believe is important for ensuring a fresh perspective on the accounts. We also voted against proposals on transaction of business, as the company did not provide enough information about the proposals. We wanted to avoid giving them unrestricted decision-making power without sufficient clarity. (two resolutions)

We voted against the appointment of the auditor at Vitasoy as they have been in place for over ten years. The company has given no information on intended rotation which we believe is important for ensuring a fresh perspective on the accounts. (one resolution)